‘Christian’ Pastors Who Want To Overturn Hate Crimes Act Will Have To Put Their Stones Where Their Mouths Are

  all talk no stonings

yeah, "Jesus," whateverSo there are three “Christian” pastors who wanted the courts to invalidate the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act because “thought crimes,” so they filed suit with the total asshole Thomas More Law Center, saying basically “WAH, Orwell and stuff! Animal Farm! Two legs bad! We will not be able to urge the stoning of homosexuals as prescribed in Leviticus!” and the court was all “yeah, idiots, you do not have standing to sue to overturn this law unless you are actually wanting to drag a man behind your car? You do not actually want to drag a man behind your car, do you? You just want to say hateful shit? STILL PROTECTED, and you got no standing to sue.” (The court did describe the “Christian” pastors’ speech as “hateful” before noting that about two thirds of the country was at that precise moment standing in line at Chick-fil-A and stuffing the word in the memory hole.) (That’s right bitchez, we got yer Orwell hanging!)

Take it away, Talking Points Memo!

But the appeals court found that the plaintiffs had “not alleged any actual intent” to cause bodily injury to any gay individuals, pointing out that the pastors explicitly denounced “crimes of violence perpetrated against innocent individuals.”

The Hate Crimes Act, the appeals court ruled, “does not prohibit Plaintiffs’ proposed course of hateful speech” and said they “can’t quite pinpoint what it is they want to say that could subject them to prosecution under the Hate Crimes Act.” [Editor’s note: an updated version of the opinion removes the word “hateful” from the opinion, but a cached version makes clear that the original opinion included the word “hateful.”)

Even if they quoted Leviticus 20:13, which called for men who have sex with one another to be put to death, “they have not alleged any intention to do more than merely quote it,” which wouldn’t be unlawful under the Hate Crimes Act, the appeals court ruled.

“If the Hate Crimes Act prohibits only willfully causing bodily injury and Plaintiffs are not planning to willfully injure anybody, then what is their complaint? Plaintiffs answer that they fear wrongful prosecution and conviction under the Act. Not only is that fear misplaced, it’s inadequate to generate a case or controversy the federal courts can hear,” the appeals court ruled.

You know who else got put to death in Leviticus? EVERYONE. For EVERYTHING. Like, "Sassed your mom? Sassed your slave owner? Cut your beard and whatnot? Ate a lobster? Didn't finish your peas? THAT'S A STONING!" Good times, Leviticus. Good Christian times.

Better luck next time, bigots!

[TPM]

Related

 
Related video

About the author

Rebecca is the editor and publisher of Wonkette. She is the author of Commie Girl in the O.C., a collection of her OC Weekly columns, and the former editor of LA CityBeat. Go visit her Commie Girl Collective, and follow her on the Twitter!

View all articles by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

221 comments

  1. chascates

    Michele Bachmann was just appointed to the board of the Thomas More Law thingie so she'll sort things out right.

      1. actor212

        Maybe that's what God meant, tho? I sort of prefer my Gods to be long-haired hippie freak peacenicks who sit around a tent with a dozen other guys and one hot chick smoking weed.

          1. doloras

            And this is why the Muslins have the right idea about their holy books: NO TRANSLATION, God said it in the original Arabic and it's not to be messed with by human hands. If of course you assume that the people who took dictation from Mohammed wrote every jot and tittle down right. And that the voice in Mohammed's head that said it was God Almighty was telling the truth.

        1. HistoriCat

          "Hey man, I had a radical idea."
          "What, dude?"
          "What if – like – everyone was nice to everyone else? And I meaneveryone!"
          "Whoa"
          "Yeah man"
          "Hey dude – pass that over."
          "Intercepted!"

    1. noodlesalad

      Ah, the holy Book of Rainy Day Women. Let's not forget 12:36 "He who passeth the dutchie to the right hand side is unclean to the Lord and must get stoned." Or 12:37 "He who does not bogarteth, but shares with his neighbor in equal part, will be blessed."

          1. kakotechnia

            The Stockton and Darlington railway, first major passenger rail line to use scheduled trains?

          2. James Michael Curley

            Girl you're looking at two big spenders
            Why the world don't know what me and Wayne might do
            Our pa's each own one of the World Trade Centers
            For a kiss and a smile I'll give mine all to you

    1. GemlikeFlame

      Only if they violate one of the Levitical prohibitions. Like, say, the one against dining at Red Lobster.

  2. johnnyzhivago

    What a country! I looked at CNN.com this morning and the #3 headline is:

    "Gabby's hairdoo bashed on Twitter"

    Life is imitating art, like the AT&T ad where the news person interrupts "regular programming" with a bulletin from FB "this just in: the search is on for cute boots"

    1. PsycWench

      If CNN did a story on everything bashed on Twitter they would never be able to do a news segment again. Or maybe that has already happened.

    2. PubOption

      If anything, I would have complained about one of the Russian gymnasts, who appeared to have glitter in her hair. (Sorry, I can't remember her name).

      1. CindynEncinitas

        So. Much. Fucking. Glitter! Maybe that's why she ate it off the beam. Glitter in the eyes! Stupid, stupid gymnast! Dye your hair next time!

  3. OneDollarJuana

    Well, we'd better overturn laws against negligent homicide. Because not giving a shit is a thought process.

  4. PsycWench

    Right-wing Christians paranoid about bad things happening to them that have in fact never happened but maybe should?
    Imagine that.

    1. JustPixelz

      The historical irony was Jesus basically preached separation of church and state. At the time the state was the Roman occupation and Jesus said our kingdom is elsewhere so they aren't occupying our minds. But today's American Christian wingers totally want the government to occupy our minds. Also vaginas and uteri.

  5. actor212

    But the appeals court found that the plaintiffs had “not alleged any actual intent” to cause bodily injury to any gay individuals, pointing out that the pastors explicitly denounced “crimes of violence perpetrated against innocent individuals.”

    Errrrrrrrrrrr, ummmmmmmmmmm, but they're saying gay people are guilty individuals. That sort of sounds to me like a hate crime, since it encourages people who agree they are guilty to do God's work.

    And not in the "feed the poor" way.

  6. chascates

    And besides the dangers of the same sex buttsecks is the dangers of the eating of the forbidden foods. Leviticus 11 (New International Version):
    Clean and Unclean Food

    11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.

    4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

    9 “‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.

    13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

    20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

    So if you follow Leviticus you must follow the whole deal and not just what is convenient for you. "Remove the mote of pork from your eye before you remove the sawdust of ass-fucking from your brother's eye."

        1. DocChaos

          No need to worry, I'm working on a delicious pork substitute made from locust and katydid paste, so you'll soon be able to enjoy "bacon" again.

      1. chascates

        A meat-filled animal so delicious it would have caused the Temple itself to explode, had the People of the Book marinated it overnight and then slow-smoked it over oak.

      2. SorosBot

        That's exactly what I was going to ask – along with what insects walk on all fours when they have six legs.

        1. Biel_ze_Bubba

          Cud-chewing bunnies?

          Lots of weird shit in the Bibble (not just Leviticus), which the fundies find various excuses to say is NOT literal, as opposed to the stuff that IS literal, which is obviously different because, hey, they want to believe SOME of this weird shit, just not ALL of it, and they get to choose because … ehhh, they never do explain that. (Like why Genesis I is literally true, and Genesis II, meh, not so much.)

          1. thatsitfortheother1

            Therefore, no great surprise when they can't make heads nor tails of "the general welfare."

          2. MosesInvests

            Oh, but the fundies *do* take Genesis II literally. That's the whole original sin thing-basically one of the cornerstones of their belief. If Adam and Eve didn't eat the apple, then there was no need for Jeebus to be crucified to atone for sinful snacking.

          3. Biel_ze_Bubba

            Except for where, in Gen 2, Adam is lonely, and God makes the animals to keep him company (and Adam gets to name eight million species – good thing he lived for several centuries!) The Fundies seem to prefer Gen 1, where God makes the critters first, and then makes Adam to serve as the boss. No particular reason for choosing one over the other, but they are forced to explain away whichever one they decide isn't literally true.

      3. YasserArraFeck

        Interestingly, the hyrax is closely related to the elephant. Of course, that sounds "Evolutiony", so it's clearly bullshit

      4. CindynEncinitas

        I don't know but if it graces a pretzel bun and you put chili and cheese on it I'll try it.

    1. thatsitfortheother1

      I had an anticipatory chubby reading about all the things one might eat, but alas…

    2. chicken_thief

      No more NFL football?! Fuck you, Leviticus, and the split hoofed beast you rode in on.

    3. Boojum

      So, according to God, if I eat bacon wrapped scallops, I might as well get fucked in the ass? Well, alrighty then.

    4. YasserArraFeck

      Fortunately all the eating prohibitions did not specifically address cunnilingus, so all is not lost

  7. Goonemeritus

    If we make it illegal to murder people because of who they are how will we ever teach the world about Jesus’s love?

    1. chascates

      You know a better way to show love would be to create a world free of horrible pain and injustice and also to not guilt trip the people you created. Just sayin'.

    1. fuflans

      yeah but think of the opportunities for kinky ass sex to distract from all that boring ass 'exposition' and 'religious law'.

      like 'game of thrones' only with more desert and 'thou shalt nots'

  8. Pragmatist2

    If to be true to Christ's teachings, you have to preach hate perhaps you should re-examine your premise.

  9. Terry

    "Good times, Leviticus. Good Christian times."

    Leviticus is Old Testament and in the Torah. Most of the sexy, violent, or otherwise highly interesting and entertaining parts of the Bible are. It's just that the fundies take that stuff literally and most Jewish people (except the crazy ones), Catholics (except the crazy ones), and High Church Protestants (except the crazy ones) don't. Except the crazy ones.

    1. WhaleChowder

      Yeah, I thought about bringing up the fact that Leviticus is Old Testament too, thanks for saving me the bother. It's worth pointing out that modern Xtians aren't really interested in Leviticus itself, just the parts that suit their purpose.

  10. noodlesalad

    The First Amendment does not protect you from making a complete ass out of yourself. It also doesn't protect you from the criticism and mockery your stone-age faith will receive from sane people. And nothing is going to save your ass when you die, go see St. Peter, and he's all "Yeah, see, you were supposed to love your neighbor as yourself. Did you stop reading the Bible after four chapters, like you did with every other book on earth? Sorry, better luck in Hades."

    1. PsycWench

      According to everyone on my hometown TV station's Facebook page, the First Amendment allows public figures to trash gays but it does not allow the public figures to be trashed themselves. It's an interesting interpretation.

      1. BoroPrimorac

        A frightening one, actually. Free speech for me and not for thee is what these fascists bastards are aiming at and they're electing politicians crazy enough to fulfill this dream of theirs.

  11. Goonemeritus

    I will not be breaking all of the teaching of Leviticus this weekend but I do plan to make some nice Portuguese pork and clams.

  12. nowave

    Persecution ain't what it used to be, all the romance and transcendence has gone out of it. This is like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and free contraception *combined*…sniff…

  13. freakishlywrong

    Being gay: worthy of a stoning.
    Raping altar boys: not so much.
    Being a reprehensible hypocrite: priceless, bitches.

    1. kittensdontlie

      Stoning people, huh? Move those wall street bankers to the front of the line for theirs, only "supersize that please".

  14. elviouslyqueer

    *sigh*

    "Love one another, as I have loved you."

    Suck on that, you motherfucking bigoted asshole preachers. Suck. On. That.

  15. StarsUponThars

    "Look, assholes, what part of 'love they neighbor as thyself' do I have to repeat?" — Jesus Christ

  16. Estproph

    If you spend your time reading Leviticus and ignoring the gospels, especially after Christ said "I am the new Covenant" then you have no business calling yourself Christian. If you went to Chick-Fil-A specifically to support them because you just hate dem dam fags, you have no business calling yourself a person.

  17. Chet Kincaid_

    Some of the Chick-Fil-A stuff has been bothering me, especially what some politicians have been saying and doing. We seem to have forgotten that Free Speech allows people to talk about their hateful beliefs. Citizens can say what they want about Neanderthal Chicken-Mongers, and boycott who they want for their 12th Century beliefs, but when government officials say they want to block a restaurant from doing business in their city only because of the beliefs of the owner, that's un-American. Now, if the restaurant is discriminating against customers or employees, bombs away. But this other shit just hands an easy one to the other side.

    1. actor212

      CfA as a corporation gave millions to anti-gay groups. That's enough for me. The corporation has a proven track record of human rights violations. They have no business being opened in places where their record runs against the stated laws of equality and tolerance.

      1. Chet Kincaid_

        Good! Government officials should get on the stick and prosecute them for their discriminatory actions, not ban them because the owner said a thing. When I open my chicken restaurant in Biblethump, TN, and write on my blog that I believe fundamentalist Christians are ruining the country, even though I have not fired fundies for being idiots or banned fundies from my restaurant, I don't want the mayor withdrawing my business license. Capiche?

        1. actor212

          So long as your shop doesn't discriminate in serving them, I'm behind you. I'm fine with Dick Cathy, or whatever his name is, saying whatever the fuck he pleases.

          But there's the difference: the company, the firm, the stores themselves ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST GAYS, LESBIANS AND WOMEN! I've been alerting people to this fact for five fucking years: the organization ITSELF is as hateful as the KKK or the American Nazi Party.

          That's a banning, in my book.

        2. Billmatic

          I am currently getting things together for my business license to open the Homosexual Pornography Emporium across the street from the Creation Museum.

        3. HistoriCat

          Do I have to actually go to Biblethump, TN to get some of this delicious chicken or will you deliver to civilization?

    2. chascates

      I think that a government trying to prohibit retail stores also hurts a lot of people (employees, suppliers, consumers) who don't buy into a businesses philosophy but depend on it for salary or convenience. As much as I despise the Sam Walton clan the person working at Walmart is almost like me. Almost like me; she has a job and I don't!

      1. actor212

        Yea, but think about all the people Wal-Mart put out of work in the towns and cities that they open in. Think of all the ancillary jobs to those places– the coffee shops, the drugstores, the delivery people, the sanitation, the traffic cops.

        Those folks are like you, too.

        I'll shop at Wal-Mart when I have to, because I have to, but I make a point of going to the local shops and buying something there too.

        As far as I know, apart from labor practices and buying from China, Wal-Mart is careful to segregate their politics from their practices. On the basis of free speech, I do not oppose Wal-Mart opening in NYC.

        I oppose it because of the economic impact.

        1. elviouslyqueer

          It's like you know me, actor.

          Oh, and I celebrated CFA appreciation day by making a point to eat every meal at one of our local restaurants (including getting shawarma at the local Halal grocery/deli/smoothie shop). Because that's how I roll.

          1. actor212

            I saw what happened when Wal-Mart came to Oneonta, a fairly small city in central NY and home to the US Soccer hall of fame. The city boasts two universities, and the largest population in the surrounding five counties.

            Main Street went dark…except the bars, of course (colleges, remember). There was this lovely little five and dime store, the kind of general store every small town in America had, where they might not have what you wanted in stock, but they could get it with a phone call and a UPS delivery, and they'd even open a store account for you.

            The dress shop that had prom dresses in October, because that's what the girls looked forward to. An actual hat store. A tobacconist with a wooden Indian out front. A chemist's, not a pharmacy, not a drug store, with a soda fountain and a guy named Pete who worked the counters. The pharmacist could whip up a poultice for you OR your dog or horse in no time flat.

            A hardware store where you could find a dusty old pipe wrench for that sixty year old pipe that has fittings they don't make anymore.

            Gone. Thanks to Wal-Mart.

          2. widestanceromance

            Without customers, that smiley face frowns and skips town right quick. A local WM closed up and I rejoiced as I made it a point to drive past and honk at the now barren box without a store.

            I never cared for the hateful vibe I get in WMs, and hearing Christian muzac piped all over the store was the last straw.

            What I'm saying is "Just Say No" to WM and do not look back. Towns that decry an opening but flock there once it opens get little sympathy from me.

          3. Biff

            I live on the outskirts of such a town. walmart came in, I continued to support the local ACE, Penney's, etc, but I couldn't do it on my own. They have a regional strategy–we now get people from over 100 miles away doing a month's worth of shopping there. Those people didn't used to come here. Bottom line, no more ACE, no more Penney's, no more local clothing store, even a local meat shop is gone. I go without stuff rather than shop there, and wait until I have to go to Vegas, 70 miles away. Sometimes, you just can't avoid it though…

          4. widestanceromance

            Thank you for balancing my rant. No sooner did I hit 'submit' did I think about how they monopolize areas so it is prohibitive to go anywhere else. Which is doubly sad, because they sell crap that needs to be replaced in short order, sending people right back again.

            The very first thing I HATED about WM was advertising showing people squealing about how they only came in for 1 item and left with a new TV, because it was SO cheap. They didn't need the new TV in the first place, and will waste even more money when the crap TV craps out. How in the hell are low-income people helped by this?

            I'll go on for another 5,000 words if I don't Just. Stop. Now.

          5. tessiee

            ^
            This?
            Is only one reason why I haven't spent a nickel in Walmart in close to 15 years.
            There's also their horrendous track record of the way they treat and pay their employees. A former co-worker was originally from the same town as the Waltons, and recounted a story about how, when it looked inevitable that one location would unionize, they closed the store and moved away like spiteful children taking their toys and going home.

            As another wonketteer commented recently, "I don't have much money, but it's mine, and they're not getting it".

          6. CindynEncinitas

            What about shops that have artisans making things that they teach their children how to make so that people in this country have some fucking skills to do things besides throw a box or operate a cash register or sell meth? The money leaves the community, which is horrible, but so do the skills. It's the brain drain that scares me the most.

    3. elviouslyqueer

      I actually agree, Chet. I think Menino et al.'s hearts were in the right place, but the whole "you aren't welcome to open your restaurants here" attitude is misplaced, if not downright unenforceable.

      That said, Dan Cathy can still eat a large helping of deep-fried rat dicks, AFAIC. 1st Amendment, bitches!

    4. James Michael Curley

      That's what you get when you elect a monastic, boring, pedantic republican as your executive. No Mitt I wasn't talking about you, but, yeah!

    5. MissNancyPriss

      You're absolutely right, of course, but hearing the government officials blurting out that CfA is not welcome in their city was so funny.

    6. bobbert

      Just a remark that it's impressive when a fairly simple observation (BTW, I agree with you) can start up such a wide ranging comment stream.

    1. actor212

      I hope not. There's this young thing at the local coffee shop I've got my eye on.

      I'm hoping to persuade her doing me is an ironic thing.

      I'm not proud. I'm horny.

  18. SoBeach

    Westboro Baptist is appearing at military funeral near me today. We're going to see just how much their particular brand of protected speech is appreciated…

  19. kakotechnia

    Oh man, I once looked at legal papers written up by the Thomas More Law Center, and they were NUTS. The situation: one of those traveling anti-abortion horror parades wanted to set up shop at my New England state university for two days, so that they could call our students walking out of the union whores and murderers. Good times.

    So we get this 12 page legal document demanding (among other things)
    1) a central location, because speech is the freest when there's foot traffic
    2) police protection, so that they be FREE to be fucking disgusting without fear of reprisal
    3) the university was to PAY for this police protection, because if they had to pay, again, that would not be FREE, and they want to be FREE to be disgusting FOR FREE.

    There were some other things, but those were the highlights. The kicker? If their demands were not met, the traveling horror show threatened to STAY LONGER than two days. That's right, an independent religious group was not only demanding that a public state institution accommodate them, and if not, we would be forced to…accommodate them more?

    We let them in, partially because no one wanted to deal with their unhinged legal team, but mostly because our Yankee students don't really think that these wackjobs exist, and we thought seeing the enemy would be helpful. Turns out calling women whores is actually anti-persuasive.

    1. tessiee

      So then, Bank of America should be required to pay for police to protect the Occupy protestors, right?

    2. GunToting[Redacted]

      "If their demands were not met, the traveling horror show threatened to STAY LONGER than two days. "

      When I was in college, I was briefly a member of a fraternity (a co-ed service fraternity, not the normal kind). After 1 semester, I realized that this group was made up mostly of people who were not invited to join other fraternity/sororities, so I buggered off. By their rules, I was inactive. Later the next semester, I was approached by the treasurer who was there to collect my "inactive dues." I asked him what would happen if I didn't pay them? Would it be like a double-negative, and I'd become active again, or would I reach a greater state of inactivity. They stopped bothering me after that.

  20. actor212

    This entire thread needs a little of this:

    I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? …Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

    God, I miss President Bartlett.

    1. Dudleydidwrong

      There's nothing more inconsistent than a fucking Christian literalist. Pick-and-choose literalism is their standard. Their Bible is a cafeteria: "I'll take that one but I don't like that one, or that one either."

    2. viennawoods13

      That was one of the best moments- of many- of the series. And, if I recall, I believe that the bitch in question was, at that moment, eating a – wait for it- crab puff.

  21. fuflans

    i am quite seriously fond of hilary mantel's interpretation of more: sanctimonious, pompous, joyless pain in the ass who willfully engendered his own death.

  22. thatsitfortheother1

    My brother an I were going to open a restaurant called Jesus Chicken.

    All we would have on the menu was fried chicken assholes.

    And when customers got their order they'd go "Jesus!"

    It seems Chick Fukn-A beat us to it.

  23. prommie

    Jeebus was a big propenent of thought crimes, with his talk about how speaking with hate is murder in your heart, looking lustfully is adultery in your heart. Hmm. These christians should give christianity a try. They probably wouldn't like itm though, not hateful enough.

    1. Biff

      Which is why Jimmy Carter was such a big ol' whoremonger, what with all the lusting in his heart.

  24. widestanceromance

    So, my idea for selling bacon condoms is not cool with Most Omnipotent High Captain Spaghetti In The Sky?

    Well, it's back to selling prayer beads made from the teeth of harlots' children for me.

  25. qwerty42

    Whoa, whoa, whoa … Pretty much everyone in Leviticus 20 gets put to death. And what about Leviticus 19? Specifically Leviticus 19:19:

    …19 “‘Keep my decrees.

    “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

    “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

    “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

    So, mules are forbidden? And blended fabrics? And I'm not sure what to make of the rest.

    1. Guppy

      Pretty much everyone in Leviticus 20 gets put to death.

      Except those who induce a miscarriage. Go figure!

      1. Graham Cracker

        I'm heading to the protest in front of the local Wal-Wort. We can't have our retail stores flaunting the laws of the bible like that!

  26. smitallica

    Dear religious fucktards:

    The Bible doesn't mean shit to lawmaking in 2012. Please stop trying to make it so.

    "Have you actually read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."
    –Reverend Lovejoy

    1. thatsitfortheother1

      His name is Vic and mine's Tim. We were also going to open abortion clinics under the name VicTim.

  27. DerrickWildcat

    Oh yeah, the, Thomas More Law Center. They are bank rolled by Dominoes founder and uber Catholic, Tom Monaghan. Rick Santorum was on their board of directors. They are the same guys that were the defense attorneys for the Kitzmiller vs. Dover (Intelligent Design) trial a few years back.The ACLU embarrassed them to the point that Federal Judge Jones called them, "Breathtaking Inanity." I wouldn't worry too much about them.
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/santorum-
    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,11

      1. Jimmyone

        I wear a shirt with that saying on it……It is incredible at the amount of head scratching and quizzical looks I get. I just shrug my shoulders and tell them I found it at the Christian Book Burning store. they just don't get it.

  28. KeepFnThatChicken

    pointing out that the pastors explicitly denounced “crimes of violence perpetrated against innocent individuals."

    In the eyes of wingnut Christians, gays are not "innocent individuals". Make no mistake about it.

    You know what? Fuck what Gandhi said about the Christ, too, because He's clearly not powerful enough to change the hearts of the very haters he allegedly inspires. Man up, Jesus, and straighten these bitches out, because dey trippin' hard.

  29. randcoolcatdaddy

    My heart just bleeds for these poor, defenseless souls who have Hollywood, Al Gore, the UN, gays, the New York Times, CNN, scientists, atheists, gays, socialists, liberals, communists, the Chinese, Muslims, terrorists, extremist pacifist Quakers, #Occupy protestors, Soros, Meryl Streep, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney and Obama taking away their rights to spew hateful vomit. And guns too, also.

    1. Billmatic

      Yeah what's wrong with loving this country so much that you absolutely detest everything that it produces?

  30. mavenmaven

    Hey preacher-haters: your kind spent the last two thousand years killing everyone for Jesus and he still hasn't returned, killing more people probably won't change that.

  31. MRjonz

    Odd how the fervid followers in the Big Old Crazy Book With Some Nice Thoughts In The Second Part always ignore that Second Part when it comes to interacting with others.

  32. MosesInvests

    "'Christian' Pastors…Will Have To Put Their Stones…"-sorry, Exalted Editrix, but that headline assumes facts not in evidence.

  33. DahBoner

    What about if you eat your peas too slowly, one pea at a time?

    Can we at least shake some sense into them???

      1. homotownrecords

        there's several different kinds proscribed in leviticus, all for different types of tresspasses

  34. ttommyunger

    Hmm. Patriotism used to be the last refuge of scoundrels; seems like they've found a new hiding place. BTW, don't be discouraged about Eastwood's idiocy. He's all image, like John Wayne. Made some good movies, none involving his own life experiences. There are plenty of real heroes making a good living in movies, but they don't support or glamorize war or violence; for reasons that should be obvious.

Comments are closed.